OLAC does not object to making language of expression core and most think it is a good idea. We find the phrase “if the resource includes some text” problematic. It would be better to say something like “if the resource includes significant language content.” This does not have to imply that the work contains language content, only that the expression does (e.g., a DVD of a narrated version of a silent film).

+

+

One OLAC member commented that this proposal “would make the wording in 6.11 more consistent with the other sections of RDA. For instance, RDA 5.3 already considers language of expression core in RDA if ‘applicable and readily ascertainable.’ Rule 0.6.3 also considers it core when ‘applicable.’”

+

+

This is not directly relevant to this proposal since RDA does not require catalogers to use access points to identify expressions, but OLAC is very concerned about the LCPS for 0.6.3 which says to identify expressions by adding an expression attribute to the authorized access point for the work for translations and language editions. In an era where we are seeking cataloging efficiencies, adding access points for all the language expressions on a typical DVD would be a lot of work for no benefit to users that we can see. Adding an access point for only one of the language expressions will be misleading and confusing. We don’t think access points are an effective way to convey language options to users for the complex situations that are common with DVDs. In many libraries, all of the language-qualified access points will lead to the same, single DVD.

+

+

We do think language of moving image expressions is important to users. As with the EURI:G date proposal, we are less sure about the specific qualifying terms proposed. The terms are not mutually exclusive and do not necessarily capture all relevant aspects of language. Language of dubbing and language of subtitles do not seem to be mutually exclusive with translation. Some of us think dubbed languages might better be represented by a combination of audio and translation, although that’s probably not suitable for direct display to users.

+

+

Some of the qualifying terms are unclear to us.

+

+

By “translation from an intermediate language,” we think they mean “intermediate language of translation”

+

+

It is unclear to us what is meant by “language of insert titles.” One participant found that “according to the Memidex dictionary/thesaurus (http://www.memidex.com/insert-titles), its definition is: an on-screen text translation, transcript for a TV program or movie. They treat it as a synonym with caption, closed caption, intertitle, subtitle. If that is correct, it’s a broader term for the other terms that are listed.” Another participant asked a colleague who thought “this might be referring to dubbed films that include ‘overlay’ or ‘insert’ titles for things like place names and times or ‘meanwhile’ or ‘2 days later’ that might come up onscreen in the text of the original language and need an insert title in the dubbed language.”

+

+

Caption needs to be defined. The example they give is for a caption on a drawing. This sort of caption needs to be separated from moving image captions, which have a different meaning. MARC doesn’t have a separate code for captions for still images and I’m not sure it is necessary to distinguish this type of language information.

+

+

This sort of contextual information about language metadata is important, but it is unclear to me how to fit it into RDA. Some of the methods supported by RDA, such as access points, are not really amenable to this kind of expansion.

+

+

In summary, we agree with the proposal to make language core, but think a different approach is needed to incorporate this kind of language qualification into RDA.

+

+

Kelley McGrath (OLAC) 10/1/12

==Constituency Responses==

==Constituency Responses==

+

[http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#community-eurig-3 All responses]

26.1.1.3: Does not agree with the creation of a new instruction 26.1.1.4 Translations; a controlled list for relationships between expressions is already in J.3. Does not agree with the changes to the examples since they reflect the previously proposed changes to 6.11 and 7.2.

26.1.1.3: Does not agree with the creation of a new instruction 26.1.1.4 Translations; a controlled list for relationships between expressions is already in J.3. Does not agree with the changes to the examples since they reflect the previously proposed changes to 6.11 and 7.2.

Does not agree with the proposal because of the proposed methodology. Thinks that the proposed qualifications are not of the Language element, but of the expression/part, and are element subtypes. Believes this could be a useful augmentation of RDA if it is redrafted to follow RDA principles. This should apply to all content with RDA/ONIX Framework character of “language”.

6.11 BL agrees that Language of Expression should be a Core Element. We take the view that there is no need for a conditional clause. However, if such a clause is retained, we believe that “text” is too restrictive.

+

+

6.11.1.3; 6.11.1.4

+

We do not think that an optional addition to qualify the Language of Expression is the best approach. We think that Type of Language of Expression, could be incorporated into the RDA Element Set as element sub-types rather than as either a new element or a qualifier.

+

+

26.1.1.4

+

We don’t believe that an additional instruction for translations is required. The nature of the relationship can be specified using the relationship designator.

General comments

I disagree with proposed change to 6.11. Language of an expression applies to non-textual resources, does it not? For example a film can be made without a textual screenplay - documentaries are a good example. The dubbed version of such a film still has a new language of expression.

In the next to last suggested example, there should be no space between the initials C. and F.: C.F. Fritzsch rather than C. F. Fritzsch.

- Glennan (PCC) for Adam Schiff, University of Washington (8/3/12)

As ACOC has noted in its response, the statement about language of expression being a core element in the beginning of 6.11 should not be restricted to text, but rather should refer to "language content," or "linguistic content." Furthermore, the statement should not refer to the "resource" (manifestation), but rather to the "expression." MLA agrees with EURIG and ACOC that language of expression should be a core element even when not needed to differentiate between expressions. However, one commenter suggests that the statement might not even need to be any more specific than simply "core element," since core elements are applied on an "as applicable" basis.

MLA does not support adding parenthetical qualifications to the language element. The proposed qualifications refer to relationships, whereas the named languages refer to a WEMI entity. The two should not mix. Plus, as LC notes in its official response, these could interfere with the use of the language element in a linked data environment.

Regarding the examples in 7.12.1.3, even with the proposed revisions, the ninth and tenth examples describe manifestations.

Tracey Snyder, MusLA 9/18/12

OLAC does not object to making language of expression core and most think it is a good idea. We find the phrase “if the resource includes some text” problematic. It would be better to say something like “if the resource includes significant language content.” This does not have to imply that the work contains language content, only that the expression does (e.g., a DVD of a narrated version of a silent film).

One OLAC member commented that this proposal “would make the wording in 6.11 more consistent with the other sections of RDA. For instance, RDA 5.3 already considers language of expression core in RDA if ‘applicable and readily ascertainable.’ Rule 0.6.3 also considers it core when ‘applicable.’”

This is not directly relevant to this proposal since RDA does not require catalogers to use access points to identify expressions, but OLAC is very concerned about the LCPS for 0.6.3 which says to identify expressions by adding an expression attribute to the authorized access point for the work for translations and language editions. In an era where we are seeking cataloging efficiencies, adding access points for all the language expressions on a typical DVD would be a lot of work for no benefit to users that we can see. Adding an access point for only one of the language expressions will be misleading and confusing. We don’t think access points are an effective way to convey language options to users for the complex situations that are common with DVDs. In many libraries, all of the language-qualified access points will lead to the same, single DVD.

We do think language of moving image expressions is important to users. As with the EURI:G date proposal, we are less sure about the specific qualifying terms proposed. The terms are not mutually exclusive and do not necessarily capture all relevant aspects of language. Language of dubbing and language of subtitles do not seem to be mutually exclusive with translation. Some of us think dubbed languages might better be represented by a combination of audio and translation, although that’s probably not suitable for direct display to users.

Some of the qualifying terms are unclear to us.

By “translation from an intermediate language,” we think they mean “intermediate language of translation”

It is unclear to us what is meant by “language of insert titles.” One participant found that “according to the Memidex dictionary/thesaurus (http://www.memidex.com/insert-titles), its definition is: an on-screen text translation, transcript for a TV program or movie. They treat it as a synonym with caption, closed caption, intertitle, subtitle. If that is correct, it’s a broader term for the other terms that are listed.” Another participant asked a colleague who thought “this might be referring to dubbed films that include ‘overlay’ or ‘insert’ titles for things like place names and times or ‘meanwhile’ or ‘2 days later’ that might come up onscreen in the text of the original language and need an insert title in the dubbed language.”

Caption needs to be defined. The example they give is for a caption on a drawing. This sort of caption needs to be separated from moving image captions, which have a different meaning. MARC doesn’t have a separate code for captions for still images and I’m not sure it is necessary to distinguish this type of language information.

This sort of contextual information about language metadata is important, but it is unclear to me how to fit it into RDA. Some of the methods supported by RDA, such as access points, are not really amenable to this kind of expansion.

In summary, we agree with the proposal to make language core, but think a different approach is needed to incorporate this kind of language qualification into RDA.

Kelley McGrath (OLAC) 10/1/12

Constituency Responses

Proposed changes to 6.11: Do not agree. Some of proposed qualifiers are better expressed as relationships. Also concerned about adding textual terms to attributes; could create problems in a linked data environment.

Proposed changes to 7.12: Do not agree to proposed changes in examples; convenience of the user is still paramount.

Agrees with designating the language of expression as core but has concerns about the proposed changes.

6.11: prefers retaining Language of Expression as a core element; agrees to the deletion of the "if needed ..." clause. Do not agree with addition about "some text"; don't think any clause is required.

6.11.1.3: does not agree with proposal; agrees with LC response.

7.12.1.3: does not agree with the proposed revision to the "Latin words ... " example. Disagrees with the proposed revision to the "French words; English translations ..." example. Questions the "Originally written in Afrikaans." example.

26.1.1.3: Does not agree with the creation of a new instruction 26.1.1.4 Translations; a controlled list for relationships between expressions is already in J.3. Does not agree with the changes to the examples since they reflect the previously proposed changes to 6.11 and 7.2.

Suggests rewording:
Language of expression is a core element when the resource has language relevance.

Important to record the language or languages of the expression in any case. Would not restrict the language of expression to resources which include text,
because resources with spoken word and others also have to be considered. Suggests using codes for languages according to ISO 639.

Does not agree with the proposal because of the proposed methodology. Thinks that the proposed qualifications are not of the Language element, but of the expression/part, and are element subtypes. Believes this could be a useful augmentation of RDA if it is redrafted to follow RDA principles. This should apply to all content with RDA/ONIX Framework character of “language”.

6.11 BL agrees that Language of Expression should be a Core Element. We take the view that there is no need for a conditional clause. However, if such a clause is retained, we believe that “text” is too restrictive.

6.11.1.3; 6.11.1.4
We do not think that an optional addition to qualify the Language of Expression is the best approach. We think that Type of Language of Expression, could be incorporated into the RDA Element Set as element sub-types rather than as either a new element or a qualifier.

26.1.1.4
We don’t believe that an additional instruction for translations is required. The nature of the relationship can be specified using the relationship designator.